Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

The Keystone (XL) Pipeline Pt 2

General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.

Re: Obama Administration to Reject Keystone XL

Unread postby Lore » Tue 10 Nov 2015, 10:23:42

ROCKMAN wrote:If dohboi et al didn't use the stuff then Rockman wouldn't have a job looking for it...nor would anyone else. But even if dohboi didn't use the stuff other consumers would so it doesn't make any difference if he didn't produce GHG by consuming hydrocarbons...it would still happen anyway. So he continues participating in the process.

The refuge of scoundrels. Kinda like gang rape mentality: the fossil fuels are going to get burned by other consumers anyway so why not participate. LOL.


Which is the perfect logic to stop making the stuff, or making it so expensive it becomes impractical to use versus alternatives. Then nobody would be using it.
The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life.
... Theodore Roosevelt
User avatar
Lore
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 9021
Joined: Fri 26 Aug 2005, 02:00:00
Location: Fear Of A Blank Planet

Re: Obama Administration to Reject Keystone XL

Unread postby dohboi » Tue 10 Nov 2015, 11:07:57

lore +2 ^100
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 16608
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Obama Administration to Reject Keystone XL

Unread postby Tanada » Wed 11 Nov 2015, 07:42:20

Lore wrote:
Tanada wrote:The climate legacy of President Obama is one of failure after failure. Personally I had great hopes when the Democrat party took the Presidency that we would see a lot of Environmental improvements. Instead we have had 7 years of lip service with almost no actual measurable progress. So much could have been done, but wasn't. Rhetoric does not help anything except appearance over substance.


You may want to blame that on a Republican Congress which is dead set against moving forward with any kind of environmental agenda. The President can only put forth policy suggestions. It's up to our lawmakers to put such lip service into action.


As far as I can tell Nixon got things done with a Democrat congress and Clinton got things done with a Republican congress so that excuse doesn't fly far for me.
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 13896
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Obama Administration to Reject Keystone XL

Unread postby Lore » Wed 11 Nov 2015, 10:00:30

Tanada wrote:
Lore wrote:
Tanada wrote:The climate legacy of President Obama is one of failure after failure. Personally I had great hopes when the Democrat party took the Presidency that we would see a lot of Environmental improvements. Instead we have had 7 years of lip service with almost no actual measurable progress. So much could have been done, but wasn't. Rhetoric does not help anything except appearance over substance.


You may want to blame that on a Republican Congress which is dead set against moving forward with any kind of environmental agenda. The President can only put forth policy suggestions. It's up to our lawmakers to put such lip service into action.


As far as I can tell Nixon got things done with a Democrat congress and Clinton got things done with a Republican congress so that excuse doesn't fly far for me.


Those were the good old days when parties worked across lines to get things done. Also, if you recall your history, environmental conservation was always a conservative concept till after Nixon.

When Did Republicans Start Hating the Environment?

It's one of those facts that sweeps you back into an alien, almost unrecognizable era. On July 9, 1970, Republican President Richard Nixon announced to Congress his plans to create the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. By the end of that year, both agencies were a reality. Nowadays, among their other tasks, they either monitor or seek to mitigate the problem of global warming—actions that make today's Republicans, Nixon's heirs, completely livid.

To give one example of how anti-environment the right today is, just consider this ThinkProgress analysis, finding that "over 58 percent" of congressional Republicans refuse to accept the science of climate change.

So what happened to the GOP, from the time of Nixon to the present, to turn an environmental leader into an environmental retrograde? According to a new study in the journal Social Science Research, the key change actually began around the year 1991—when the Soviet Union fell. "The conservative movement replaced the 'Red Scare' with a new 'Green Scare' and became increasingly hostile to environmental protection at that time," argues sociologist Aaron McCright of Michigan State University and two colleagues.

--------------------
One intriguing related hypothesis posits that the right wing has become more unwilling to compromise in general because it has become more psychologically authoritarian—closed-minded, prone to black-and-white thinking. That's not a pattern that would uniquely affect environmental issues, though. If anything, it would be felt most strongly on the topics that authoritarians most care about: crime, national defense, religion in public life, and matters of that ilk.

Whatever the cause, the consequence is clear: We can't get anything done in a bipartisan way on the environment any longer. "The situation," conclude the authors, "does not bode well for our nation's ability to deal effectively with the wide range of environmental problems—from local toxics to global climate change—we currently face."
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/ ... larization
The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life.
... Theodore Roosevelt
User avatar
Lore
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 9021
Joined: Fri 26 Aug 2005, 02:00:00
Location: Fear Of A Blank Planet

Re: Obama Administration to Reject Keystone XL

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Wed 11 Nov 2015, 11:27:29

"Which is the perfect logic to stop making the stuff, or making it so expensive it becomes impractical to use versus alternatives. Then nobody would be using it." Exactly since neither Lore. dohboi nor the vast majority of fossil fuel consumers are unwilling to let loose of the fossil fuel tit voluntarily. LOL.

Thus it's up to the govt to increase the costs since it's a violation of federal law for ExxonMobil et al to collude in order to increase costs to the consumers. But then why hasn't the govt done one of the easiest approaches: increase motor fuel taxes significantly since the "energy crisis" of the late 70's? Easy answer IMHO: because those politicians knew they wouldn’t get re-elected if they did that. And they wouldn't get re-elected because the majority of the US citizens refuse to let go of that sugar nipple. LOL.

Y'all can try to duck the reality and point fingers at XOM et al all you want. But it is the fossil fuel consumers who are the primary producers of climate change. Until their attitudes change the situation will only get worse.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 10533
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Obama Administration to Reject Keystone XL

Unread postby Lore » Wed 11 Nov 2015, 11:47:43

ROCKMAN wrote:
Y'all can try to duck the reality and point fingers at XOM et al all you want. But it is the fossil fuel consumers who are the primary producers of climate change. Until their attitudes change the situation will only get worse.


Doesn't change the dynamic. Eliminate the production and the user will change their habits. You're not changing attitudes by making cheap fossil fuels available.

How else would you suggest we radically reduce the use of fossil fuels?
The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life.
... Theodore Roosevelt
User avatar
Lore
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 9021
Joined: Fri 26 Aug 2005, 02:00:00
Location: Fear Of A Blank Planet

Re: Obama Administration to Reject Keystone XL

Unread postby Cid_Yama » Wed 11 Nov 2015, 13:00:31

Prosecution of the Tobacco industry went a long way towards a huge reduction in smoking in the US.

Prices on Tobacco products went way up, and alternatives quickly filled the market.
"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and provide for it." - Patrick Henry

The level of injustice and wrong you endure is directly determined by how much you quietly submit to. Even to the point of extinction.
User avatar
Cid_Yama
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 6922
Joined: Sun 27 May 2007, 02:00:00
Location: The Post Peak Oil Historian

Re: Obama Administration to Reject Keystone XL

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Wed 11 Nov 2015, 15:35:59

"You're not changing attitudes by making cheap fossil fuels available." And you and the other consumers aren't changing the attitudes of the energy companies by paying them to produce fossil fuels, are you?

"How else would you suggest we radically reduce the use of fossil fuels?" It would easily be done as Cid just offered: significantly raise the taxes on you and the other fossil fuel consumers. But the consumers wouldn't tolerate the govt doing that. Lots of folks didn't have a problem with raising tobacco taxes: they didn't smoke.

So how many letters have you written to your congress critter demanding the govt increase the fed motor fuel tax...say 500%? That would only add about $0.90/gallon and bring prices back to where they were about a year ago. If the public could handle that same price one year ago they should be able to handle it now, right? And that would increase govt revenue by $116 BILLION PER YEAR. Just think if the govt used that extra income to subsidize alt energy? A win-win, right?

So there's your easy solution. You happy know that I've fully answered your questions? LOL

Again back to the same problem you cannot get around: you and the other consumers are primarily responsible for the direct production of most of the GHG. And you and the other consumers refuse to accept policy changes that would change the dynamics. IOW you and the other consumers can go on blaming anyone/everyone for the problem. But it will never change the fact: Y’ALL are the cause of our continuing climate problems and Y’ALL are unwilling to change.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 10533
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Obama Administration to Reject Keystone XL

Unread postby Cog » Wed 11 Nov 2015, 16:48:15

Lore wrote:
Tanada wrote:The climate legacy of President Obama is one of failure after failure. Personally I had great hopes when the Democrat party took the Presidency that we would see a lot of Environmental improvements. Instead we have had 7 years of lip service with almost no actual measurable progress. So much could have been done, but wasn't. Rhetoric does not help anything except appearance over substance.


You may want to blame that on a Republican Congress which is dead set against moving forward with any kind of environmental agenda. The President can only put forth policy suggestions. It's up to our lawmakers to put such lip service into action.


Please cite the exact policy that the Republican majority voted against. Do you have a Senate or House bill number that the rest of us could read where the Republicans voted no on?

Thanks for your efforts.
User avatar
Cog
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 9326
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Metro-East Illinois

Re: Obama Administration to Reject Keystone XL

Unread postby Plantagenet » Wed 11 Nov 2015, 16:57:52

Cog wrote:
Lore wrote:blame that on a Republican Congress which is dead set against moving forward with any kind of environmental agenda. The President can only put forth policy suggestions. It's up to our lawmakers to put such lip service into action.


Please cite the exact policy that the Republican majority voted against. Do you have a Senate or House bill number that the rest of us could read where the Republicans voted no on?

Thanks for your efforts.


When did the O administration have time to propose new environmental laws? Early on they were too busy granting BP waivers from US environmental laws so BP could rush ahead and drill the Macondo well in the Gulf of Mexico without going through any kind of EIS review. Then the BO people had to grant more waivers from environmental laws so they could dump tons of carcinogenic chemicals into the Gulf to "clean up" the Macon spill from the well they authorized BP to drill.

More recently the EPA has just been acting on their own authority, without regard for the law. Who could ever forget the environmental disaster the EPA created last summer by their lawless actions on the Animas River?

Image
Thanks EPA!!!! Next time please follow the law!
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 20378
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: Obama Administration to Reject Keystone XL

Unread postby Lore » Wed 11 Nov 2015, 17:09:58

ROCKMAN wrote:"You're not changing attitudes by making cheap fossil fuels available." And you and the other consumers aren't changing the attitudes of the energy companies by paying them to produce fossil fuels, are you?

"How else would you suggest we radically reduce the use of fossil fuels?" It would easily be done as Cid just offered: significantly raise the taxes on you and the other fossil fuel consumers. But the consumers wouldn't tolerate the govt doing that. Lots of folks didn't have a problem with raising tobacco taxes: they didn't smoke.


I already suggested this as well. You wern't paying attention. Just raising the price without an alternative solution would certainly make people angry, but that's not what anyone is suggesting.

You raise the price till it has the appropriate effect. I am glad you agree with us Y'all though.


ROCKMAN wrote:So there's your easy solution. You happy know that I've fully answered your questions? LOL


Not really, because what your saying is the solution is not a solution. You're inferring that there is no solution. LOL

ROCKMAN wrote:Again back to the same problem you cannot get around: you and the other consumers are primarily responsible for the direct production of most of the GHG. And you and the other consumers refuse to accept policy changes that would change the dynamics. IOW you and the other consumers can go on blaming anyone/everyone for the problem. But it will never change the fact: Y’ALL are the cause of our continuing climate problems and Y’ALL are unwilling to change.


You seem to be stuck here in trying to deflect the root cause of the problem by continuously redirecting your industry's culpability.

First and foremost, the average person does not produce fossil fuels for their use. Your building a straw man in that just because people use the products then that justifies their creation. To hell if it's going to end most life as we know it. If people demand poison then the oil industry is damn well ready to serve it up! On top of that the industry is also prepared to obfuscate the dangers of their products use. I can't help you if you don't see all that as a morally corrupt position.
The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life.
... Theodore Roosevelt
User avatar
Lore
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 9021
Joined: Fri 26 Aug 2005, 02:00:00
Location: Fear Of A Blank Planet

Re: Obama Administration to Reject Keystone XL

Unread postby Lore » Wed 11 Nov 2015, 17:44:54

Cog wrote:
Please cite the exact policy that the Republican majority voted against. Do you have a Senate or House bill number that the rest of us could read where the Republicans voted no on?

Thanks for your efforts.


I hate to do your homework. This is pretty easy to find. There is much more with a simple Google.

G.O.P. Assault on Environmental Laws

Here are some of the points of Republican attack:

Clean Water In May, the administration approved a long-overdue rule greatly increasing the number of streams and wetlands protected by the Clean Water Act. The rule will ensure cleaner drinking water and do little to impede responsible development. Even so, the House has already passed a stand-alone bill to cripple it; in the Senate, John Barrasso of Wyoming, who says the rule would “devastate” private property rights, introduced a similar bill in April. Mr. Obama should veto any such measure.

Climate ChangeMr. Obama has made skillful and timely use of his authority under the Clean Air Act to increase automobile efficiency, crack down on mercury emissions and reduce harmful smog, but his most important initiative lies ahead: a final rule due later this summer to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from existing coal-fired power plants. The rule, which requires individual states to develop emission-reduction plans tailored to their energy mix, is central to the president’s pledge to reduce America’s greenhouse gas emissions by 28 percent from 2005 levels by 2025, and to his credibility as a leader in the fight against global warming. Mr. McConnell, in servitude to the coal industry, has been urging states not to cooperate, while sending unhelpful messages to the rest of the world that Mr. Obama will not be able to deliver. The Republicans are weighing how to undercut the rule, but there’s hardly any doubt they will try.

Natural Resources Conservationists hope that Mr. Obama will emulate Bill Clinton by using his powers under the 1906 Antiquities Act to give at-risk landscapes protection as national monuments. Congress, led by the House Committee on Natural Resources chairman, Rob Bishop, is pre-emptively considering a raft of bills to weaken the president’s powers under the act, as well as other measures that would transfer federal lands to the states or sell them to the highest bidder.

A further example of how far these Republicans have strayed from what was once a bipartsian commitment to environmental stewardship is their tepid response to what could be one of great conservation efforts of this century: a multiyear, ecosystem-wide effort by the Interior Department, in concert with states and private landowners, to keep a threatened bird called the greater sage grouse off the endangered species list by protecting its habitat across 10 Western states. Most of that habitat lies outside oil and gas-bearing zones, but even so some legislators are pushing bills that would effectively kill the plan.

As ambitious as it is, the sage grouse initiative is a legitimate executive action aimed at carrying out Congress’s purpose in the 1973 Endangered Species Act, which was to save a species before it disappears. But what Congress intended with this law, or the Clean Water Act in 1972, or the Clean Air Act in 1970, is what the leadership in this Congress shows virtually no interest in honoring.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/08/opini ... .html?_r=0
The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life.
... Theodore Roosevelt
User avatar
Lore
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 9021
Joined: Fri 26 Aug 2005, 02:00:00
Location: Fear Of A Blank Planet

Re: Obama Administration to Reject Keystone XL

Unread postby Tanada » Thu 12 Nov 2015, 07:51:33

Lore wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/08/opinion/gop-assault-on-environmental-laws.html?_r=0


Sorry but a very biased news report is not the same thing as a citation of an actual event. Even the most ideologically neutral news source is not a good source, though they can give specific facts that can be independently verified.

You should treat politics just like science, you want the specific who, when, where and how. All you have here is statements that are not supported by specifics. It is the same as all those back and forth claims about hundreds of coal power plants being closed when most of them were small and well past their normal age and only used for peaking purposes. It was extremely disappointing when I discovered that of the first 150 coal burners closed 20 were very small in the 1-10 MWe range and another 50 well under 100 MWe generating capacity. It also turns out the average age of the plants closed is close to 57 years when they were only designed to operate for 40 years when built. IOW it was all rhetorical smoke and mirrors on both sides. Since then I have looked at every piece of environmental news with a very critical eye to try and ferret out the underlying truth. The only way to do that is to look at the source documentation the news is reported from.

Northern leg Keystone XL cancellation is a prime example of what I am talking about, while most environmentally minded voters have been mired in this debate about a dozen other border crossing pipelines have been upgraded in capacity or even built from scratch providing more total capacity that the northern expansion of the Keystone XL. However with so many focused on just this one pipeline those other projects were rarely if ever given any attention in the press, and they went through with near zero national level opposition.
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 13896
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Obama Administration to Reject Keystone XL

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Thu 12 Nov 2015, 08:28:58

T - Good comments as always. But a little correction from the Rockman before other less gentle ones are flung at you like monkey poo. LOL. There are just 6 pipelines that come across the border from Canada. And they capacities have been increased thanks to PRESIDENT OBAMA'S ADMINISTRATION APPROVING THOSE PEMITS. But new pipelines have been built (like Flanagan South and the southern leg of KXL) to accommodate the increased production through the existing border crossing pipelines but that has all been done on the US side of the border.

Also a factor that's rarely reported in detail: huge transit train depots (than can fill/unload 100+ tank cars in a few hours) have been built just on either side of the border. They receive/ship the oil they carry from/into pipelines. IOW not all the rail transported oil is shipped a 1,000+ miles. Much is just shipped a very short distance across the border from one pipeline connect to another. Just one dynamic adjustment the anti-KXL folks helped to obscure by getting everyone to focused on that one permit issue.

BTW if it's alright with you we might as well back off pointing out the obvious about this issue. Some folks are so invested with perpetuating their "truths" they'll never really admit the reality of the situation. I know it will be difficult to not respond to such silly posts but let’s try so we can stop wasting space here. Any newbies will just have to go back to the archives to catch up.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 10533
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Obama Administration to Reject Keystone XL

Unread postby Lore » Thu 12 Nov 2015, 08:54:19

Tanada wrote:
Lore wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/08/opinion/gop-assault-on-environmental-laws.html?_r=0


Sorry but a very biased news report is not the same thing as a citation of an actual event. Even the most ideologically neutral news source is not a good source, though they can give specific facts that can be independently verified.

You should treat politics just like science, you want the specific who, when, where and how. All you have here is statements that are not supported by specifics. It is the same as all those back and forth claims about hundreds of coal power plants being closed when most of them were small and well past their normal age and only used for peaking purposes. It was extremely disappointing when I discovered that of the first 150 coal burners closed 20 were very small in the 1-10 MWe range and another 50 well under 100 MWe generating capacity. It also turns out the average age of the plants closed is close to 57 years when they were only designed to operate for 40 years when built. IOW it was all rhetorical smoke and mirrors on both sides. Since then I have looked at every piece of environmental news with a very critical eye to try and ferret out the underlying truth. The only way to do that is to look at the source documentation the news is reported from.

Northern leg Keystone XL cancellation is a prime example of what I am talking about, while most environmentally minded voters have been mired in this debate about a dozen other border crossing pipelines have been upgraded in capacity or even built from scratch providing more total capacity that the northern expansion of the Keystone XL. However with so many focused on just this one pipeline those other projects were rarely if ever given any attention in the press, and they went through with near zero national level opposition.


Well, I'm sorry you haven't been paying attention to our governments political system lately if you don't think there is a strong right wing partisan anti environmental stance. I've given real examples up thread here of their efforts to defeat most any action that smells of environmental protection. Maybe you could point me to all the good things they introduced lately relative to the environment?

I studied political science. Its a misnomer, politics is not a science and shouldn't be treated as such. Most decisions are not based on any other science as we've seen with Republican legislators when it comes to addressing climate science. Fact, only two of the Republican Presidential candidates even acknowledge climate change is a problem. Even though their own National Academy of Science says it is with all the evidence freely available.

As I pointed out years ago about the KXL. It's not about all the other lines getting around it, or that stopping this line would be all end all for the importation of tar sands oil. It's the line in the sand and a start of reforming our overuse of dirty oil. Like all movements, you need to focus attention and create a symbolic win to crystallize the cause to go forward. If you really are following the environmental news you would realize this. Wars are won over many battles.
The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life.
... Theodore Roosevelt
User avatar
Lore
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 9021
Joined: Fri 26 Aug 2005, 02:00:00
Location: Fear Of A Blank Planet

Re: Obama Administration to Reject Keystone XL

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Mon 16 Nov 2015, 09:38:39

Once again the Rockman has to apologize for making faulty assumptions. Such as believing everyone here understands how much the US govt, under the authority of President Obama, DIRECTLY facilitates the production of the “dirtiest oil on the planet” that’s exported to the US from Canada.

But first some background for folks who don’t fully understand the entire process. Oil sands production is too thick to flow. Not one bbl of it could be shipped to US refineries in its natural state. It has to be diluted with condensate…essentially light oil. The blend is called “dilbit”…DILuted BITumine. From the Canadian govt website:

A National Energy Board study assumed a standard dilbit containing 33% condenste. By selecting different diluent types and blend ratios, bitumen shippers attempt to lower component costs, increase blend value, and maintain pipeline transportability. The blend ratio may consist of 25 to 55% diluent by volume

But the Alberta producers have a big problem: not enough condensate. From the Canadian govt website:

“Energy producers in western Canada churned out about 145,000 barrels of condensate per day in 2013, according to the National Energy Board. However, oil sands companies use about 350,000 barrels of condensate per day. The difference (205,000 bbls per day) is made up largely by U.S. producers that ship diluent to Canada via pipeline or rail.”

IOW the US is currently exporting 75 million bbls per year our light oil to Alberta so they can blend it to make the dilbit they then export to the US. But how can that be: the US govt “bans” the export of our oil? Oh...I forgot: under the authority of President Obama the govt can approve exceptions to our oil export “ban”. Thus about 60% (205k bbls/day of the 350k bbls/day) of the condensate needed to make the dilbit exported to the US (340 million bbls/year) is made possible by the US govt PERMITTING the export of our oil to Alberta.

IOW the US govt oil export PERMITS allow 200 million bbls per year containing the “dirtiest oil on the planet” to be consumed by its citizens.

OK Greenpeace: I’ll see your bet with President Obama not approving the KXL permit and raise you with all the condensate export permits to Alberta approved by President Obama. BTW during the term of the current POTUS US oil exports to Canada have increased 1000%: from 10 mmb in 2007 to 121 mmb on 2014.

IMHO these facts destroy the spin that while the denial of the KXL permit might not have an impact on oil sands imports it does have “symbolic value”. That value only exists with the ignorance of the fact that the current POTUS, by issuing oil export exceptions, DIRECTLY ENABLES the US consumption of the 200+ million bbls of the exports from the oil sands fields.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 10533
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Obama Administration to Reject Keystone XL

Unread postby Lore » Mon 16 Nov 2015, 09:50:04

ROCKMAN wrote:IOW the US govt oil export PERMITS allow 200 million bbls per year containing the “dirtiest oil on the planet” to be consumed by its citizens.


Already on the list! Batter up!
The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life.
... Theodore Roosevelt
User avatar
Lore
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 9021
Joined: Fri 26 Aug 2005, 02:00:00
Location: Fear Of A Blank Planet

Re: Obama Administration to Reject Keystone XL

Unread postby Cid_Yama » Mon 16 Nov 2015, 12:17:16

If dohboi et al didn't use the stuff then Rockman wouldn't have a job looking for it...nor would anyone else.


Since Exxon knew that the burning of fossil fuels leads to dangerous climate change as early as the 1970's (per internal Exxon memos and presentations), then they also knew that what they had already found couldn't be extracted and sold, lest it be burned and do irreparable harm through dangerous climate change.

The only reasons to keep looking for more, would be to hide that they knew, and expand their known reserves to defraud investors, and force the taxpayers to reimburse them for what they were forced to leave in the ground.

Knowing what they already knew, they should have stopped looking for more, long ago. Oil exploration has been a fraudulent activity, since they knew they couldn't extract and sell what they already had, without destroying the planet through runaway climate change.

The Government also knew back then, since President Carter was pushing for alternative energy, even putting solar panels on the White House as an example.

That is why James Baker, before the election, conspired with Israel to provide Iran with American spare parts for their military equipment in exchange for holding on to the hostages until after Carter was defeated in the elections, with the promise of reimbursement and enhanced aid to Israel after Reagan entered the White House. (All proved and documented during Iran-Contra. Likud was afraid Carter would push for a two-state solution for the Palestinian problem in a second term and resented the arm-twisting at Camp David.)

Reagan's first act was to tear out the solar panels, as an act of spite and triumph for the Oil Industry and their political minions.

Powerful forces were at work to keep us on this path even back then. The Carter Administration was the hinge point, the moment of truth, and Evil triumphed.
"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and provide for it." - Patrick Henry

The level of injustice and wrong you endure is directly determined by how much you quietly submit to. Even to the point of extinction.
User avatar
Cid_Yama
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 6922
Joined: Sun 27 May 2007, 02:00:00
Location: The Post Peak Oil Historian

Re: Obama Administration to Reject Keystone XL

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Mon 16 Nov 2015, 18:01:58

Cid - "Since Exxon knew that the burning of fossil fuels leads to dangerous climate change as early as the 1970's (per internal Exxon memos and presentations), then they also knew that what they had already found couldn't be extracted and sold, lest it be burned and do irreparable harm through dangerous climate change."

Stop, take a breath and think about what you just said. First, and most important, if XOM had disclosed whatever their analysis may or may not have revealed...so what? It had no legal requirement to stop doing their thing. If the CEO stood before Congress and swore on a stack of bibles the company had irrefutable evidence that burning hydrocarbons would cause climate change it still had no legal requirement to stop doing its thing. IOW there is absolute certainty that history would not be any different.

And how can I say it is absolute certain? Very easy: it's what XOM and all the other fossil fuel produces are doing today. Seriously: you could obviously post countless reports proving (at least in your opinion and that of many others) climate change is being caused by ff consumption. But why just point a finger at the energy companies? Do I have to remind how much ff come from federal leases? IOW not only does the govt allow fossil fuel production it directly encourages it.

Did you even read what I just posted: President Obama, by allowing exceptions to the US Oil "export ban", is permitting enough US condensate exports to Alberta making to it possible for 60% of the oil sands (the dirtiest oil on the planet) production to be exported to the US. So tell me: why are you trying to bust XOM's balls when: first, it isn't illegal for any US company today to produce fossil fuels; second, it isn't illegal for any company to not release any study they conduct; third, if President Obama publicly states that fossil production and consumption are absolutely the cause of climate change and he yet he still DIRECTLY FACILITATES the consumption of more fossil fuels in the US then ExxonMobil then isn't he even more to blame for the situation since he's a "believer" and XOM which still has doubts?

Every energy company can post stories on the front page of every newspaper in the country CERTIFYING that fossil fuel consumption (by the public, BTW) is causing climate change how would the future be any different: the govt and the vast majority of the public still support the production of fossil fuels.

In your own words: evil triumphs... even today... with the DIRECT SUPPORT of President Obama ...a true believer of AGW.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 10533
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Obama Administration to Reject Keystone XL

Unread postby Synapsid » Mon 16 Nov 2015, 18:55:05

ROCKMAN,

The US does export oil to Canada, as you say, but I don't think those exports require permits--or rather, the permitting is automatic. Canada is special! The stipulation is that the oil be consumed in Canada, and it is: it's used to make dilbit, as you mentioned, which is sent to the US where the diluent can be recovered, I believe, and exported to Canada (permitting is automatic) where it's used to make dilbit which is sent to the US...

Not sure who's cleverer: the US oil exporters to Canada or the Canadian oil exporters to the US.

Corrections welcome.
Synapsid
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 780
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 20:21:50

PreviousNext

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests